- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
This had nothing to do with partisanship until you began this off topic rant.
The commissioning was partisan. Only those with their heads stuck where the sun don't shine know that one.
Yeah because the commissioning of a carrier for Bush is Bull****. That was the point, sorry you couldn't see it.
Conservatives supported Bush's war, but not Kosovo, and Bush gets a carrier commissioned for it.
Why don't you conservatives stand in line to suck the knob of Bush while you're at it.
Where do you get off coming to a forum where most of the people are Americans and who love our country and our presidents, even when they don't do what we want, and insulting us and our leaders.
You just go and sod off you hoser.
Reported.
This is for Bush's Dad, not W. Maybe that will ease your pain.
Love the presidents? Sorry but I've seen just as much contempt from conservative assholes regarding Clinton, so spare me you statement.
Many conservatives on this forum have done nothing but shown disrespect for Clinton without your intervention of asking them otherwise so spare me. Where is your statements asking conservatives to show their respect for the previous president Clinton?
We'll see about how much love you have for Obama. Your statements will be watched.
Which is on the topic of an aircraft carrier and it's strategic placement...how?
It's placement is clear, it is partisan. That is the point, whether you can't see it or not is irrelevant.
Huh?
Having the same home port as many other ships isn't what you think it is. For the vast majority of the time, US naval assets are not in dock. Furthermore, many US ships go to a relatively few docks for major overhauls. We frankly don't have many ports that can handle carrier refits. So this problem exists whether or not a ship is home ported in a busy port.
So while the Navy is correct about security in some regards, their proposal would increase costs. Instead of providing security for a large number of centralized berths, we'd have to spend far more to secure a large number of berths spread out. Given how little time ships spend in port anyways relative to their operational lifetimes, it doesn't seem cost effective.
Mayport Florida can't even do an overhaul and that is primarily where a carrier sits in dock for a long period of time.
It's placement is clear, it is partisan. That is the point, whether you can't see it or not is irrelevant.
Moderator's Warning: |
I read the post before I saw who wrote it.
I'm pleasantly surprised, OC.
You make some good points.
I know far more then I let on. As much as we like to pretend we're not vulnerable, the US Navy is reliant upon a relatively few ports. While repairs can be done at bases in the Middle East, Yokosuka, Guam and Pearl (with the exception of subs who can have major overhauls done there), major repairs are almost ALWAYS done at San Diego, Norfolk and a few others. I remember some carriers being unavailable for operations because they were spending 6~9 months at Norfolk undergoing routine overhauls. That's an extremely long time. Generally ships pull into port, switch crews, get supplies and stay for maybe a week or two tops. Then they go back to "work." The whole notion that centralized home porting is a serious problem is ignorant to how our Navy maintains it ships. Go Google Earth Norfolk. That base is massive for a reason.
The only time a ship spends significant times in dock is during an overhaul, refit or major upgrade. And that is generally always done in one of a handful of ports.
The only real way around this is to spend exorbitant amounts of money building naval bases capable of major refits but that will see relatively little work. That's not cost effective and when you realize the only way we're going to get really shafted under our current system is with nuclear weapons. But if the world comes to that, having guided missile frigates and carriers is all rather moot when missiles carrying 200 kt warheads are being used and ICBMs are flying every which way.
What we should do is upgrade Pearl Harbor so it can handle major carrier refits. The time savings there would be immense. Not having to steam all the way to San Diego is week or more of time savings, two when you have to come back. I really doubt the Japanese are going to let us idle a nuclear powered carrier in their harbors for half a year.
I don't see how legislators think they have the right or the knowledge to override military command when it comes to placement of our forces.
major terrorist attack on Norfolk would cripple the fleet that is in port.
That can be said for any major base. A nuclear suicide attack on Kadena would cripple that base and we have a large amount of Air Force assets there. This problem is actually a bigger threat for air force and Army then it is for the navy as the Navy rarely has lots of assets in any port at any one time, unlike the Air Force or land based units which don't have the advantage of being able to sit out in the middle of the ocean for weeks at a time (or months if you're a sub). Imagine a suicide nuclear attack on Fort Hood. That would be much worse. We can deal with a relative few ship losses (don't forget under overhauls ships generally don't have full crews). Having thousands upon thousands of soldiers vaporized is something entirely different. 65,000 soldiers and their families are stationed there. The super base model we're going to presents some serious inherent threats for different branches of the military.
Luckily the Navy realizes the inherent threat of lots of ships in one harbor at any one time. I've never heard of more then one or two carriers being worked on extensively at any one port at any time. Apparently we still abide to the lessons of 12/7/1941.
Very good points, but having spent a few years in the Navy I know that is one of the issues we always worry about. My father said one of the worst things about the BRACH after the cold war ended was the fact so much was put into so few bases. This was done to save money, and the more military units assigned to a base, the more money that area will get.That can be said for any major base. A nuclear suicide attack on Kadena would cripple that base and we have a large amount of Air Force assets there. This problem is actually a bigger threat for air force and Army then it is for the navy as the Navy rarely has lots of assets in any port at any one time, unlike the Air Force or land based units which don't have the advantage of being able to sit out in the middle of the ocean for weeks at a time (or months if you're a sub). Imagine a suicide nuclear attack on Fort Hood. That would be much worse. We can deal with a relative few ship losses (don't forget under overhauls ships generally don't have full crews). Having thousands upon thousands of soldiers vaporized is something entirely different. 65,000 soldiers and their families are stationed there. The super base model we're going to presents some serious inherent threats for different branches of the military.
Luckily the Navy realizes the inherent threat of lots of ships in one harbor at any one time. I've never heard of more then one or two carriers being worked on extensively at any one port at any time. Apparently we still abide to the lessons of 12/7/1941.
Fort Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFort Hood is located at 31°7'48" North, 97°46'49" West (31.130072, -97.780260).[2]
According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 15.0 square miles (38.8 km²), of which, 14.9 square miles (38.7 km²) of it is land and 0.1 square miles (0.1 km²) of it is water. The total area is 0.33% water.
20 Kt Crater Dia. 0.108 Fireball Dia. 0.146 Destruction Radius 0.745 Heavy Damage 1.158 Moderate Damage 1.655 Light Damage
2.608
200 Kt Crater Dia. 0.232 Fireball Dia. 0.368 Destruction Radius 1.604 Heavy Damage 2.495 Moderate Damage 3.565 Light Damage 4.456
Nuclear Explosion FactsMedium Airburst (5.3 kilometers)
x4.00 x4.00 x4.00 x4.00
Very good points, but having spent a few years in the Navy I know that is one of the issues we always worry about. My father said one of the worst things about the BRACH after the cold war ended was the fact so much was put into so few bases. This was done to save money, and the more military units assigned to a base, the more money that area will get.
So there is the political ramifications. Do you know how big Ft. Hood is?
Fort Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nukes are NOT magic weapons, for a nuke to be most effect it has to be an air burst.
A 20 kiloton nuclear weapon, which would be the TOP end of a terrorist weapon, unless they managed to get their hands on a thermonuclear device, has a blast radius and damage area of: (all distances are in Kilometers)
If they got a bigger weapon, highly unlikely, but let's say a tactical nuke, top end 200kt.
As you can see, most of the base would survive, and reality check is even a strike at the heart of the base wouldn't be as catastrophic as you made out.
However an air burst might be able to achieve near that sort of devastation:
Nuclear Explosion Facts
I'm not saying these numbers are solid, after all it's a geocities link, but it's good enough for this.
It would be far easier to run a ship into Norfolk Harbor and really muck things up then to hit Ft. Hood.
Here, just use Wiki, the actual effects are about the same. A slightly better source, but it's still Wiki, but the point still stands. To take out Ft. Hood you'd need an air burst, 200-500Kt, and if you want to do it right you use several.
Better option would be to hit Norfolk, more densely packed, greater damage done.
Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cargo ship sails from terrorist friendly port where it is loaded with the deadly cargo. Then it sails into Norfolk harbor and launches any kind of missile that can heft the weight of the nuclear device straight up. When it is at it's apogee the device is detonated.
Simple.
Conservative legislators didn't seem to have a problem criticizing Clinton and Kosovo, and I don't remember an over outcry from conservatives criticizing them.
Amazing that.
A 20 kiloton nuclear weapon, which would be the TOP end of a terrorist weapon, unless they managed to get their hands on a thermonuclear device, has a blast radius and damage area of: (all distances are in Kilometers)
As you can see, most of the base would survive, and reality check is even a strike at the heart of the base wouldn't be as catastrophic as you made out.
It would be far easier to run a ship into Norfolk Harbor and really muck things up then to hit Ft. Hood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?